About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
about his new book. he also discussed china and the history of the u.s. constitution. this is just over an hour. >> ok. concepts. for 20 years i have been advising -- roughly half of that on financial economic matters. the other half a variety of topics. about 10 years ago, um we started -- about 10 years ago, we started talking about role of law. i said to him at the time, what strikes me about this topic was that other than the occasion i can think of, other than when paul worked at the state department and bill clinton was president, this topic in my view has never gotten the attention it deserves. it has been treated too much as a technical topic. not as a fundamental topic about the relations of the state's. in my experience, i always say the chinese leadership, the most distinctive characteristic is they are systematically opened. that is to say the modus operandi is on a particular topic, let's look for the best ideas throughout the world, bring them back, study them, and then customize them as appropriate for our own system. and yet in this one respect, they have been a little b
, as of right now china owns $1.15 trillion of our debt. then, number two on the list, is japan with $1.13 trillion of our debt. now, this is interesting. out of this debt number three on the list is opec. opec is an entity. that's the countries of ecuador and venezuela and india and bahrain and iran and iraq and kuwait and amman and qatar and saudi arabia and the u.a.e., algeria, ga been a, -- gabon, nigeria. they're now number three on the list and they own $267 billion of our debt. brazil comes in at number four, $250.5 billion. and then number five on the list, new to the list, the top five list, the caribbean banking centers. now own $240.4 billion of u.s. debt. by the way, caribbean banking centers are the bahamas, bermuda, cayman islands, netherlands and panama. this is who owns us. this is who owns our debt. and this is why on this side of the aisle, what we continue to say is the spending has to be dealt with. we have seen -- we've heard from everybody. we are hearing from economists all around the globe. and they repeatedly say what we are saying, what we've been saying for ye
vacuum cleaner. sucking into the united states the net exports of europe, japan, and lately china. thus providing exporters -- germany, japan, or china -- with the requisite demand necessary. to keep the factories going. so, the ever expanding trade deficit was not an accident. it was a very clever way of replacing one that surplus recycling system with another. the first one, it was one where america had a surplus and america decided instead of doing what germany is doing at the moment -- which is cutting its nose to spite its face, and thereby entering into recession by cutting, cutting, cutting -- volcker and kissinger initially, and then volcker as the head of the fed had a different idea. we are going to expand our dominance and our wealth by expanding our deficit and using our deficits to provide the rest of the world with the demand which is necessary to grow their economies, even at the expense of ours. and who is going to pay for the deficit? if i have an ever-expanding deficit, the bank tells me it is game over. but if you are the united states of america and you have the rese
with this, the british, the french, the germans, russia, china, they all tend to view this as a proliferation problem. the conversation between iran and the other side tends to be about that issue, very narrowly focused. to kind of move that conversation, you have to figure out a different kind of architecture. the five plus one process, as such, is designed to deal with the corporation issue and the composition is that has to do with the iranian violation of the mpt and there have been 62 -- six security council resolutions that suggests sanctions. there are two countries who suggest that the issue between -- that this is not a proliferation issue but has to do with the character of the regime and one of them is israel who does not view this as strictly an arms dispute and the second one is iran who similarly suggests that although it is an arms control issue, they are really using arms control as a way to undermine the regime. there are two actors in this particular conflagration who are not accepting the argument being that this is about nuclear infractions as oppo
. but competitors in china are, rush show were trading on a daily basis. -- my competitors in china and russia work training. this is a position of irritation of a triple jump. i was like a robot in the sense that everything i was doing, the hours i was putting in it, the morning, the afternoon, the evening, i trained all they basically. my first session, 10:00, i was basically of the rank by nine and my last session would be at 6:00-6:30. then i would go to the gym. i look back, no wonder i was in really good shape. >> where did that drive? how did that drive? where do you get that drive? >> we were talking earlier about the role of parents. when you had mentioned the tiger mom or the tiger parents, we did not have tiger parents. they were there to support me and be there in times when i needed a push culminated motivation. it is just one of those things when you have a passion and a vision. you do not see anything else. that is what drives you every day. >> you just got engaged. are you going to be a tiger mom. [laughter] >> looking at the way i was raised with a set of rules and just the way my
a tiny fraction of this to deal with china or russia t our nuclear arsenal isn't stopping iran from trying to achieve its nuclear weapon. these are sad, missed opportunities to right size the military which will still be the most powerful in the world by far. for us to deal with veterans' needs. mr. mcgovern: additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: for us to deal with the threats that we face today, to deal with the damage that we have done in the misguided war in iraq. to be able to deal meaningfully with the guard and ready reserve that should be upgraded and healed from the damage that was inflicted upon him. we can provide far more real security, save tax dollars, deal with the needs of veterans that are about to be, sadly, undercut , and provide balance to our budget. because, in fact, the fiscal instability for reckless -- from reckless bills like that is in fact a national security threat. we are no longer going to be able to pay almost half the world's entire military budget. we should start by rejecting this authorization
would not say -- i was not referring to just the soviet union and nazi germany. communist china killed far more of those two tyrannies combined, with no christian heritage to speak of. there are serious scholars that makes serious arguments that there is something and luther's temperament that was germanic. he was no democrat. the more, the merrier. religious factions or alternative sources of social authority. what you want is a society in which the state does not monopolized social authority. >> you talked extensively about religion in the united states contributing to [inaudible] there is one particular force that think they can inflict their views on this country. they insist said it was the intention of the founding fathers to create a christian equivalent of iran, which i do not think is the case. just because you are religious, it does not make you write all the time. >> get in line with everybody else. with respect, i disagree with what you just said. the religious right, which i obviously am not a member, rose after the religious left in the form of the reverend martin luther
canceling each other out. how the president -- whoever the president might be -- do anything? you have china -- finding it impossible to provide a replacement for the demand that the west has done away with. so, i do not have an answer for your question. bewilderment. >> my question is about consumer demand and the extent to which the old system depended on it. if we do not have it to the same degree, could there possibly be a new economy? i cannot know how to say all of these in the right economic terms. i will say what i am thinking and see what you make out of it. its teams like all the economy's got to a point where it had to be based on growth. it could not just be sustainable. it had to grow. and that meant more consumers. so, then, that led to a lot of things ecologically that were not good for the earth's, things that people did to maximize profits. so, that is one thing. is there the possibility there might be a new economy that is not based on growth? second, if you do not have consumer demand at the same level that he used to -- and of course, i think that is why. one of the piece
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)